Examkin

Indian Polity and Governance

316 questions

All types316Multiple choice161Multiple select68Matching74Ordering13
Question 21Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the legislative powers of Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List under Article 249 of the Constitution of India:

1. A resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha under Article 249 empowering Parliament to legislate on a State subject remains in force for a maximum period of one year at a time.
2. When Parliament enacts a law under Article 249, the legislative capacity of the State Legislature over that subject is completely suspended.
3. In case of any inconsistency between a Parliamentary law made under Article 249 and a State law on the same subject, the Parliamentary law prevails so long as it remains in force.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 3 only

Answer

Statements 1 and 3 are correct, whereas Statement 2 is incorrect.
The option selecting statements 1 and 3 only is correct. Statement 1 is true because Article 249(2) caps the validity of a Rajya Sabha resolution at one year at a time. Statement 3 is true because Article 251 expressly mandates that in case of repugnancy between a Parliamentary law under Article 249 and a State law, the Parliamentary law prevails as long as it remains in force. Statement 2 is false because Article 251 preserves the State Legislature's power to legislate on the same subject.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding the tenure of a resolution under Article 249.
Under Article 249(2), a resolution passed by the Rajya Sabha declaring a State List subject to be of national interest remains in force for such period, not exceeding one year, as specified therein. It can be renewed repeatedly for one year at a time.
Verify procedural limits governing Parliament's jurisdiction over State subjects in national interest.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding the impact on State legislative power under Article 251.
Article 251 explicitly affirms that nothing in Article 249 restricts the power of the State Legislature to make any law on that subject. The State's legislative power is not suspended.
Determine whether Central legislation under Article 249 deprives the State Legislature of its constitutional competency.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding inconsistency between Parliamentary and State laws.
Article 251 specifies that if a law made by a State Legislature is repugnant to a Parliamentary law made under Article 249, the Parliamentary law prevails to the extent of repugnancy so long as it remains in force.
Apply the constitutional supremacy rule governing concurrent operational laws under Article 251.

Key Concept

Parliamentary Legislation on State List Subjects (Article 249 and Article 251)
Question 22Question →

Regarding the fundamental framework of constitutional remedies and Directive Principles under the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas High Courts under Article 226 can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other ordinary legal purpose.; Article 31C protects laws enacted to implement Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) from being declared void on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and Article 19.

Answer

The correct statements are that the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is limited to Fundamental Rights while High Courts have wider jurisdiction under Article 226, and Article 31C protects laws implementing Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) from challenges under Articles 14 and 19.
The statement comparing writ jurisdictions is correct because Article 32 can be invoked solely for Fundamental Rights violations, whereas Article 226 grants High Courts authority to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other legal rights. The statement regarding Article 31C is also correct as it expressly immunizes legislation enacted for distributing material resources (Art 39b) and preventing concentration of wealth (Art 39c) against judicial invalidation under Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedoms).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate writ jurisdiction parameters of Supreme Court versus High Courts
Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right to enforce Part III rights only. Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and any other legal rights.
Constitutional provisions under Article 32 and Article 226 establish different territorial and subject-matter scopes for writ jurisdiction.
2
Examine justiciability of Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 37 mandates that Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country but are explicitly non-justiciable.
Courts cannot issue judicial writs like Mandamus to enforce non-justiciable provisions contained in Part IV.
3
Verify scope of Quo-Warranto and protection under Article 31C
Quo-Warranto applies strictly to public offices, while Article 31C shields specific economic DPSPs under Article 39(b) and 39(c) from Articles 14 and 19.
The 25th Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 31C to prioritize egalitarian economic policies over specified fundamental freedoms.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction Scope (Art 32 vs 226) and Interrelationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 23Question →

The constitutional relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) has evolved through key judicial pronouncements. Which of the following statements accurately reflects the established constitutional position regarding their harmony and precedence?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of a harmonious balance between Part III and Part IV, and giving absolute primacy to one over the other distorts the basic structure.

Answer

The correct position is that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of a harmonious balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), and giving absolute primacy to one over the other distorts the basic structure of the Constitution.
The statement emphasizing a harmonious balance between Part III and Part IV as an essential basic structure feature accurately summarizes the ruling of the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). The Court observed that Part III and Part IV are like two wheels of a chariot, and absolute subordination of one to the other destroys the constitutional scheme.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the constitutional interplay between Part III and Part IV
Recognize that while Fundamental Rights are justiciable legal guarantees and Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, neither part was intended to completely destroy the core of the other.
Judicial precedents, particularly Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and Minerva Mills (1980), shaped this doctrine.
2
Evaluate the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) ruling
The Supreme Court struck down Section 55 and Section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which had sought to give primacy to all DPSPs over Articles 14 and 19.
The Court held that the harmony and balance between Part III and Part IV is itself a basic feature of the Constitution.
3
Assess the scope of Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Article 32 can only be invoked for Fundamental Rights violation, whereas Article 226 permits High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal/statutory rights.
This confirms that High Courts are not barred from judicial review of DPSP-based enactments, and their scope is wider, not narrower.

Key Concept

Harmony and Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (Minerva Mills Doctrine)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 24Question →

Under the Constitution of India, in which of the following parts are the Directive Principles of State Policy enumerated?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Part IV

Answer

Part IV of the Constitution of India contains the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Part IV of the Constitution of India (spanning Articles 36 to 51) outlines the Directive Principles of State Policy, which serve as constitutional guidelines for state governance and socio-economic justice.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Recall the constitutional part containing Directive Principles of State Policy.
Directive Principles of State Policy are contained in Articles 36 to 51 within Part IV.
The Constitution organizes non-justiciable principles of governance under Part IV.

Key Concept

Constitutional location of Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)
Question 25Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional relationship and legal status of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), and Fundamental Duties in India:

1. Article 31C accords legal protection to laws enacted to implement Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and Article 39(c), even if they conflict with Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19.
2. Part IV-A containing the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A was originally incorporated into the Constitution by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.
3. While Fundamental Rights under Part III are directly justiciable in courts of law, Directive Principles under Part IV and Fundamental Duties under Part IV-A are non-justiciable by themselves.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 3 only

Answer

1 and 3 only
The option stating '1 and 3 only' is correct. Statement 1 accurately reflects the constitutional provision of Article 31C, which safeguards laws enacted to achieve the socialist objectives under Article 39(b) and 39(c) against invalidation under Articles 14 and 19. Statement 3 accurately describes enforceability differences: Part III rights are justiciable, whereas Part IV principles and Part IV-A duties are non-justiciable. Statement 2 is incorrect because Fundamental Duties were inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, not the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding Article 31C
Statement 1 is correct.
Article 31C (inserted by 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971) explicitly gives primacy to Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and 39(c) over the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 19 (Six Freedoms).
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding Constitutional Amendment Act for Fundamental Duties
Statement 2 is incorrect.
Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A, Article 51A) were added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. The 44th Amendment Act was enacted in 1978 to undo several changes made during the Emergency.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding judicial enforceability
Statement 3 is correct.
Fundamental Rights (Part III) are legally justiciable and can be directly enforced via writs under Articles 32 and 226. In contrast, Directive Principles (Part IV) and Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) are constitutionally non-justiciable.

Key Concept

Interrelationship and Enforceability of Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and Fundamental Duties
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Question 26Question →

Match the Constitutional Categories in List-I with their corresponding Parts of the Constitution of India in List-II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Fundamental Rights
Directive Principles of State Policy
Fundamental Duties

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Fundamental Rights correspond to Part III, Directive Principles of State Policy correspond to Part IV, and Fundamental Duties correspond to Part IVA.
Fundamental Rights are listed in Part III (Articles 12-35), Directive Principles of State Policy are in Part IV (Articles 36-51), and Fundamental Duties are in Part IVA (Article 51A). Matching each concept to its respective Part yields the correct alignment.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the Part of the Constitution governing Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights are contained in Part III (Articles 12-35).
Part III outlines the basic rights guaranteed to citizens and individuals against state action.
2
Identify the Part of the Constitution governing Directive Principles of State Policy
Directive Principles of State Policy are contained in Part IV (Articles 36-51).
Part IV sets out socio-economic guidelines for governance and law-making.
3
Identify the Part of the Constitution governing Fundamental Duties
Fundamental Duties are contained in Part IVA (Article 51A).
Part IVA was added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, establishing moral and civic obligations for citizens.

Key Concept

Parts of the Indian Constitution covering Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Question 27Question →

Which of the following statements regarding the constitutional framework, enforceability, and amendments concerning Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and Fundamental Duties under the Constitution of India are correct?

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV are non-justiciable in a court of law, yet Article 37 explicitly declares them fundamental in the governance of the country and places a duty on the State to apply these principles in making laws.; The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 concurrently modified a Directive Principle under Article 45, inserted a new Fundamental Right under Article 21A, and added an additional Fundamental Duty under Article 51A.

Answer

The correct statements are that Directive Principles under Part IV are non-justiciable yet fundamental in governance under Article 37, and that the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 simultaneously updated Article 45 (DPSP), enacted Article 21A (Fundamental Right), and added clause (k) to Article 51A (Fundamental Duty).
The statement regarding Directive Principles accurately reflects Article 37, which establishes that while Part IV is non-justiciable, it remains fundamental to governance. Furthermore, the statement regarding the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act correctly identifies that it instituted linked provisions in Part III (Article 21A), Part IV (Article 45), and Part IVA (Article 51A, clause k).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the enforceability and status of Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 37.
Article 37 explicitly specifies that Part IV provisions are not enforceable by any court, but emphasizes that they are fundamental in the governance of the country.
This establishes the distinction between justiciable Fundamental Rights and non-justiciable Directive Principles.
2
Compare the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 with High Courts under Article 226.
Article 32 is restricted to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 permits High Courts to issue remedies for Fundamental Rights and any other legal rights.
High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broader in scope than the Supreme Court's under Article 32.
3
Examine the statutory and constitutional impacts of the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.
The 86th Amendment added Article 21A (Fundamental Right), altered the subject matter of Article 45 (DPSP), and added duty (k) to Article 51A (Fundamental Duty).
It connected all three constitutional pillars around the single theme of education for children.
4
Evaluate the direct enforceability of Fundamental Duties under Part IVA.
Fundamental Duties are not automatically enforceable by writs; judicial enforcement depends on specific parliamentary enactments.
The Constitution does not provide direct legal sanctions for the violation of Fundamental Duties.

Key Concept

Interrelationship, Enforceability, and Constitutional Amendments across Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 28Question →

Match the Constitutional provisions listed in List-I with their corresponding Articles and Parts of the Indian Constitution given in List-II. Which pairs correctly connect each provision to its exact article?

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Equal justice and free legal aid
Promotion of co-operative societies
Duty of a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to child aged 6–14 years
Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Equal justice and free legal aid pairs with Article 39A; Promotion of co-operative societies pairs with Article 43B; Duty of a parent/guardian regarding education for children aged 6–14 years pairs with Article 51A(k); and Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights pairs with Article 32.
Each provision strictly matches its exact Constitutional Article and Part: Equal justice and free legal aid matches Article 39A (DPSP); Promotion of co-operative societies matches Article 43B (DPSP); Duty to educate children aged 6-14 matches Article 51A(k) (Fundamental Duty); and direct access to Supreme Court for rights enforcement matches Article 32 (Fundamental Right).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the Directive Principles added by major Constitutional Amendments
Equal justice and free legal aid corresponds to Article 39A (added by 42nd Amendment, 1976). Promotion of co-operative societies corresponds to Article 43B (added by 97th Amendment, 2011).
Both are specific DPSP articles incorporated through distinct amendment acts.
2
Identify the specific Fundamental Duty added for education
The duty of a parent or guardian to provide education opportunities to a child aged 6–14 corresponds to Article 51A(k) (added by 86th Amendment, 2002).
Article 51A contains 11 Fundamental Duties in Part IVA, of which clause (k) specifically pertains to primary education duties of parents/guardians.
3
Identify the fundamental judicial remedy provision
The right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of rights corresponds to Article 32.
Article 32 in Part III is the heart and soul of Fundamental Rights, providing writ jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

Key Concept

Classification and Amendment History of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 29Question →

Under which Article of the Constitution of India is the Governor of a State empowered to promulgate ordinances during the recess of the State Legislature?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 213

Answer

Article 213 empowers the Governor of a State to promulgate ordinances during the recess of the State Legislature.
Article 213 of the Indian Constitution grants the Governor the executive power to promulgate ordinances when either or both Houses of the State Legislature are not in session and the Governor is satisfied that circumstances exist requiring immediate action.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the constitutional role and authority being questioned.
The query asks for the specific constitutional provision giving the Governor ordinance-making authority.
Constitutional provisions differentiate powers between Union and State executives.
2
Recall relevant constitutional Articles governing State Executive powers.
Article 213 lays down the ordinance-making power of the Governor, while Article 123 applies to the President.
Distinguishing parallel provisions at the Union and State levels is essential for accurate constitutional recall.

Key Concept

Ordinance-making power of the Governor under Article 213
Question 30Question →

Which Article under Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution of India directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Article 50

Answer

Article 50 of the Constitution of India directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive.
Article 50 of the Constitution of India, located within Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services. This principle protects judicial independence by ensuring that judicial functions are free from executive interference.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the target constitutional provision
The requirement is to find the Article dealing with separating the judiciary from the executive in public services.
The question asks for the specific Directive Principle under Part IV that ensures judicial independence from executive influence.
2
Map the provision to Part IV Articles
Article 50 explicitly states: 'The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.'
This Directive Principle forms the foundation for ensuring an impartial and independent judicial administration.

Key Concept

Directive Principles of State Policy - Separation of Judiciary from Executive
Estimated Time:45s
Question 31Question →

With reference to the Constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations governing Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), and Part IVA (Fundamental Duties) of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

1. Laws enacted to implement the Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) are protected under Article 31C from being declared void on grounds of violating Article 14 and Article 19.
2. Fundamental Duties enumerated under Article 51A were incorporated in the original Constitution of 1949 and can be directly enforced by citizens through writs issued under Article 32.
3. The Supreme Court ruled in the Minerva Mills case (1980) that the Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance and harmony between Part III and Part IV.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 3 only

Answer

Statements 1 and 3 are correct.
The correct response identifies statements 1 and 3 as true while ruling out statement 2. Article 31C grants constitutional immunity to laws fulfilling Article 39(b) and 39(c) against challenges under Articles 14 and 19. In Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court firmly established that harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is part of the basic structure. Statement 2 is false because Part IVA was introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976 and is non-justiciable.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate Statement 1 regarding Article 31C and Article 39(b) & (c).
Statement 1 is correct.
The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 inserted Article 31C, which explicitly provides that no law giving effect to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) shall be deemed void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. The Supreme Court upheld this protection in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
2
Evaluate Statement 2 regarding the origin and enforceability of Fundamental Duties.
Statement 2 is incorrect.
Fundamental Duties were not part of the original Constitution of India adopted in 1949. They were added to Part IVA (Article 51A) upon recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee via the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. Furthermore, like Directive Principles, Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable and cannot be enforced directly through writ petitions under Article 32.
3
Evaluate Statement 3 regarding the Minerva Mills judgment of 1980.
Statement 3 is correct.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 42nd Amendment that gave absolute primacy to all Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, holding that the Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance and harmony between Part III and Part IV.

Key Concept

Constitutional relationship, legal primacy, and enforceability differences among Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 32Question →

In the context of the Indian Constitutional framework governing Fundamental Rights (Part III), Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), and Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A), which of the following assertions accurately describes their legal enforceability, operational scope, and judicial applicability?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Directive Principles are non-justiciable per se, but Parliament can make specific directives statutorily enforceable through enabling legislation, whereas Fundamental Duties apply exclusively to citizens of India.

Answer

Directive Principles are non-justiciable per se, but Parliament can make specific directives statutorily enforceable through enabling legislation, whereas Fundamental Duties apply exclusively to citizens of India.
The assertion stating that Directive Principles are non-justiciable per se but can be made statutorily enforceable by parliamentary legislation, while Fundamental Duties apply strictly to citizens of India, is completely accurate. Article 37 prohibits direct court enforcement of Part IV, but legislature-driven statutes translate these duties into actionable legal rights. Concurrently, Article 51A applies exclusively to citizens.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the justiciability and statutory enforceability of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP under Part IV).
Article 37 explicitly states that Part IV provisions are not enforceable by any court. However, Parliament and State Legislatures possess full constitutional authority to pass statutory laws implementing specific DPSPs (e.g., National Food Security Act under Art 47, Equal Remuneration Act under Art 39(d)), making them legally enforceable via statutory rights.
Understanding the distinction between constitutional non-justiciability (Art 37) and statutory enforceability is essential.
2
Examine the applicability and enforcement scope of Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A, Article 51A).
Article 51A begins explicitly with: 'It shall be the duty of every citizen of India...'. Unlike certain Fundamental Rights (such as Articles 14, 20, and 21) which extend to 'any person' (citizens and non-citizens alike), Fundamental Duties bind citizens exclusively.
Distinguish between constitutional provisions applicable to all persons versus those restricted strictly to Indian citizens.
3
Evaluate judicial writ jurisdiction regarding Part IV directives and Part IV-A duties.
Superior courts (Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226) cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel Parliament or State Assemblies to pass specific legislation giving effect to non-justiciable DPSPs or non-statutory Fundamental Duties.
Respect the separation of powers and judicial limits regarding non-justiciable constitutional parts.

Key Concept

Interrelationship, justiciability, statutory implementation, and personal scope of Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and Fundamental Duties.
Question 33Question →

Which of the following provisions are explicitly enumerated as Fundamental Duties under Article 51A (Part IV-A) of the Constitution of India? Select all correct provisions.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.; To safeguard public property and to abjure violence.

Answer

The correct Fundamental Duties are the obligation to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood, and the obligation to safeguard public property and abjure violence.
The provisions concerning the promotion of harmony and common brotherhood transcending diversities, along with safeguarding public property and abjuring violence, are moral and civic duties prescribed specifically for citizens under Clause (e) and Clause (i) of Article 51A in Part IV-A.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Part IV-A (Article 51A) of the Indian Constitution
Identify that Article 51A lists 11 Fundamental Duties for Indian citizens, added originally by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, and expanded by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002.
To verify which statements represent duties of citizens rather than directions to the State.
2
Evaluate the given choices against Article 51A provisions
Promoting harmony and common brotherhood (Article 51A(e)) and safeguarding public property (Article 51A(i)) are citizen duties under Part IV-A.
Direct text mapping with Constitutional provisions.
3
Differentiate Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) from Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A)
Organizing village panchayats (Article 40) and separating the judiciary from the executive (Article 50) are directives addressed to the State under Part IV.
Distinguishing state obligations from citizen duties prevents misclassification errors.

Key Concept

Classification and Identification of Fundamental Duties vs Directive Principles of State Policy
Question 34Question →

Match the Articles of the Constitution of India in List-I with their corresponding constitutional provisions regarding the State Executive and Legislature in List-II.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 153
Article 163
Article 164
Article 200

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 153 matches with Governors of States; Article 163 matches with Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor; Article 164 matches with Appointment of the Chief Minister and other Ministers; Article 200 matches with Assent to Bills by the Governor.
Each Article under Part VI of the Indian Constitution corresponds directly to its defined provision: Article 153 mandates the Governor for each State; Article 163 specifies the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor; Article 164 covers the appointment of the Chief Minister and Ministers; and Article 200 details the procedure for the Governor giving assent to bills passed by the state legislature.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the primary subject of Article 153
Article 153 establishes the office of the Governor for each State.
It forms the constitutional basis for the executive head of a state.
2
Identify the primary subject of Article 163
Article 163 deals with the Council of Ministers aiding and advising the Governor.
It articulates the constitutional relationship between the Governor and the executive council.
3
Identify the primary subject of Article 164
Article 164 covers the appointment and responsibility of the Chief Minister and Ministers.
It specifies the ministerial appointment procedure and collective responsibility to the Legislative Assembly.
4
Identify the primary subject of Article 200
Article 200 specifies the powers of the Governor regarding assent to legislative bills.
It lays down the options available to a Governor when a bill passed by the state legislature is presented for assent.

Key Concept

Constitutional provisions under Part VI governing the State Executive and State Legislature
Estimated Time:45s
Question 35Question →

Regarding constitutional remedies under the Indian Constitution, which of the following statements accurately distinguishes the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 from that of High Courts under Article 226?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other ordinary legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Answer

High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other ordinary legal rights, whereas the Supreme Court can issue writs under Article 32 strictly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The statement claiming that High Courts can issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and other ordinary legal rights is correct. Article 32 allows writ petitions exclusively for enforcing Part III Fundamental Rights, while Article 226 permits High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights ('for any other purpose').

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the scope of Article 32 (Supreme Court Writ Jurisdiction).
Article 32 is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Part III for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights only.
The Supreme Court cannot issue writs under Article 32 for ordinary legal or statutory rights.
2
Examine the scope of Article 226 (High Court Writ Jurisdiction).
Article 226 confers powers on High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and 'for any other purpose'.
'For any other purpose' means enforcement of ordinary legal and statutory rights, making Article 226 broader in subject matter scope.
3
Compare territorial vs subject-matter scope differences.
While Supreme Court's territorial reach is wider (entire country), High Court's subject-matter scope is broader.
Correctly identifying this distinction evaluates mastery over Constitutional Remedies.

Key Concept

Writ Jurisdiction Comparison (Article 32 vs Article 226)
Question 36Question →

With reference to the constitutional powers and procedures regarding the Governor and the State Legislature in India, consider the following statements:

1. The decision of the Governor on whether a matter falls within their constitutional discretion is final, and its validity cannot be questioned.
2. When a Money Bill passed by the State Legislature is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President, the President may direct the Governor to return the Money Bill for reconsideration of the State Legislature.
3. Reservation of a bill by the Governor for the President's consideration is mandatory if the bill, in the Governor's opinion, endangers the constitutional position of the State High Court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 3 only

Answer

Statements 1 and 3 are correct. The decision of the Governor regarding their discretionary powers is final under Article 163(2), and reserving a bill that endangers the powers of the High Court is mandatory under Article 200. Statement 2 is incorrect because the President has no power to return a Money Bill for reconsideration.
The combination of statements 1 and 3 is correct. Under Article 163(2), the Governor's decision on whether a matter falls within their discretion is final and immune to challenge. Furthermore, under the second proviso to Article 200, the Governor is constitutionally bound to reserve any bill for the President's consideration if it endangers the position and powers of the State High Court. Statement 2 is false because Article 201 explicitly prohibits the President from returning a Money Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding the Governor's discretionary powers under Article 163(2).
Article 163(2) explicitly provides that if any question arises whether a matter falls within the Governor's discretion, the decision of the Governor is final and cannot be questioned.
This establishes the constitutional finality of the Governor's discretionary authority.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding the reservation of Money Bills for the President under Article 201.
Article 201 allows the President to direct the Governor to return a bill to the House for reconsideration, provided that the bill is not a Money Bill.
Neither the Governor nor the President can return a Money Bill for reconsideration.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding mandatory reservation of bills under Article 200.
The second proviso to Article 200 mandates that the Governor must reserve any bill that derogates from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger its constitutional position.
This is a mandatory (non-discretionary) constitutional requirement to safeguard judicial independence.

Key Concept

Discretionary powers of the Governor and legislative reservation provisions under Articles 163, 200, and 201
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Question 37Question →

Match the Commissions, Committees, and Resolutions on Centre-State Relations in List-I with their corresponding major recommendations or declarations in List-II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Rajamannar Committee (1969)
Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973)
Sarkaria Commission (1983)
Punchhi Commission (2007)

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct matching pairs are: Rajamannar Committee (1969) matches with recommending the abolition of All-India Services and omission of Articles 356, 357, and 360; Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) matches with demanding restriction of Union jurisdiction strictly to four subjects; Sarkaria Commission (1983) matches with recommending a permanent Inter-State Council under Article 263 while retaining All-India Services; Punchhi Commission (2007) matches with recommending a fixed five-year tenure for Governors and localizing emergency provisions.
Each committee/resolution is correctly matched with its distinct proposal: Rajamannar Committee advocated abolishing All-India Services and Emergency provisions; Anandpur Sahib Resolution sought to limit Union power strictly to 4 subjects; Sarkaria Commission urged establishing an Inter-State Council while retaining All-India Services; Punchhi Commission proposed localizing emergency provisions and securing fixed tenures for State Governors.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Examine the recommendations of the Rajamannar Committee (1969).
It was set up by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu. It strongly advocated state autonomy, recommending the abolition of All-India Services (IAS/IPS/IFS) and deletion of President's Rule and Financial Emergency provisions.
Identify state-appointed bodies that proposed radical restructuring of Centre-State powers.
2
Examine the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973).
Formulated by the Shiromani Akali Dal, it asserted maximum state autonomy, restricting central power strictly to Defense, Foreign Affairs, Communications, and Currency, with all residual powers resting with states.
Identify political resolutions seeking extreme decentralization of legislative and executive powers.
3
Examine the Sarkaria Commission (1983).
Appointed by the Central Government, it favored cooperative federalism, rejected the abolition of All-India Services (viewing them as essential for federal cohesion), and urged the setup of a permanent Inter-State Council under Article 263.
Identify central commission recommendations regarding federal institutions and inter-state coordination.
4
Examine the Punchhi Commission (2007).
Focusing on modern governance, it recommended localized emergency measures (limiting breakdown interventions to specific affected districts/areas rather than the whole state) and protecting the office of the Governor with fixed tenures.
Identify modern constitutional proposals regarding emergency provisions and gubernatorial tenure.

Key Concept

Centre-State Relations Commissions and Committee Recommendations
Question 38Question →

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional provisions governing the reservation of state bills by the Governor for the consideration of the President:

1. Under the second proviso to Article 200, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to reserve a bill for the consideration of the President if, in the Governor's opinion, the bill would derogate from the powers of the State High Court so as to endanger its constitutional position.
2. When a Money Bill passed by the State Legislature is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President under Article 201, the President may direct the Governor to return the Money Bill to the House of the Legislature for reconsideration.
3. If an ordinary bill reserved for the President is returned for reconsideration and is subsequently re-passed by the State Legislature within six months with or without amendment, the President is constitutionally bound to grant assent to the bill.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 only

Answer

Only statement 1 is correct.
The option stating '1 only' is correct because Statement 1 accurately captures the obligatory reservation clause in the second proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution of India, which safeguards High Court powers. Statements 2 and 3 fail because Article 201 explicitly excludes Money Bills from being returned for reconsideration and does not compel the President to assent to state bills re-passed by a State Legislature.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding mandatory reservation of High Court-related bills under Article 200.
Statement 1 is TRUE. Under the second proviso of Article 200, if a bill passed by the State Legislature derogates from the constitutional powers of the High Court so as to endanger its constitutional role, the Governor MUST NOT assent to it and MUST reserve it for the President.
This provision protects judicial independence and ensures central constitutional oversight over state legislative encroachments on High Courts.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding Presidential return of Money Bills under Article 201.
Statement 2 is FALSE. Article 201 explicitly specifies that when a bill is reserved for the President, the President may direct the Governor to return the bill to the House provided that it is NOT a Money Bill.
Money Bills cannot be returned by the President for reconsideration; the President can either assent to or withhold assent from a reserved Money Bill.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding Presidential assent upon re-passage under Article 201.
Statement 3 is FALSE. Unlike the Governor under Article 200 (who must assent if a returned bill is re-passed by the State Legislature), the President under Article 201 is NOT constitutionally bound to give assent even if the State Legislature re-passes the bill within six months.
Article 201 grants absolute veto discretion to the President over state legislation reserved for consideration.

Key Concept

Reservation of State Bills for Presidential Consideration (Articles 200 and 201)
Question 39Question →

With reference to the constitutional position and powers of the Governor in an Indian State, consider the following statements:

1. Reserving a bill passed by the State Legislature for the consideration of the President is mandatory for the Governor if the bill endangers the constitutional position of the State High Court.
2. If a non-Money Bill returned by the President is re-passed by the State Legislature with or without amendments, the President is constitutionally bound to give assent to the bill.
3. The Constitution explicitly provides for the Governor acting in their discretion under specific circumstances, whereas no such explicit provision for constitutional discretion exists for the President.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: 1 and 3 only

Answer

The correct option is the one stating that statements 1 and 3 only are correct.
The combination of statements 1 and 3 only is correct. Statement 1 accurately captures the compulsory reservation clause under Article 200 concerning High Court authority. Statement 3 correctly identifies that Article 163 explicitly provides for gubernatorial discretion, unlike Article 74 regarding the President. Statement 2 is false as the President is not constitutionally bound to give assent under Article 201.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 regarding mandatory bill reservation under Article 200.
Under the second proviso of Article 200, if a bill passed by the State Legislature endangers the position of the State High Court by derogating its constitutional powers, the Governor must reserve it for Presidential consideration.
This is a mandatory constitutional obligation designed to safeguard judicial independence in states.
2
Analyze Statement 2 regarding Presidential assent to State bills under Article 201.
Under Article 201, if the President returns a non-Money Bill to the State Legislature and the Legislature re-passes it, the President is still under no constitutional obligation to grant assent.
The veto power of the President over State legislation is absolute, unlike for Parliamentary bills under Article 111 where re-passage obligates Presidential assent.
3
Analyze Statement 3 regarding explicit constitutional discretion of the Governor.
Article 163(1) and 163(2) explicitly empower the Governor to act 'in his discretion' in certain matters and make the Governor's decision on discretion final. In contrast, Article 74 does not contain similar explicit wording for the President.
The Constitution deliberately grants explicit constitutional discretion to the Governor.

Key Concept

Discretionary powers and legislative procedure of the Governor under Articles 163, 200, and 201.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 40Question →

Match the Constitutional Provisions/Articles concerning Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties in List-I with their corresponding Constitutional Amendments/Origins in List-II:

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Article 31C (Initial insertion giving primacy to Article 39(b) and (c) over Articles 14 and 19)
Article 38(2) (State obligation to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities)
Article 43B (Promotion of voluntary formation and autonomous functioning of co-operative societies)
Article 51A(k) (Duty of a parent or guardian to provide educational opportunities to children aged 6 to 14 years)

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Article 31C (Initial insertion) matches with the 25th Amendment Act, 1971; Article 38(2) matches with the 44th Amendment Act, 1978; Article 43B matches with the 97th Amendment Act, 2011; and Article 51A(k) matches with the 86th Amendment Act, 2002.
The correct matching aligns each constitutional provision with its precise amending act: Article 31C was originally inserted by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971); Article 38(2) was added by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978); Article 43B was added by the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act (2011); and the Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(k) was added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the origin of Article 31C
Article 31C was introduced by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 to shield laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) from judicial review under Fundamental Rights.
This amendment established the precedence of specific Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19.
2
Identify the amendment that inserted Article 38(2)
Article 38(2) was inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.
The 44th Amendment added Clause (2) to Article 38 to mandate the reduction of inequalities in income, status, and opportunities.
3
Identify the constitutional background of Article 43B
Article 43B was added by the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011.
The 97th Amendment granted constitutional status to co-operative societies by adding Article 43B under Part IV and Part IXB.
4
Identify the origin of the 11th Fundamental Duty (Article 51A(k))
Article 51A(k) was added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.
The 86th Amendment introduced free and compulsory education by adding Article 21A, substituting Article 45, and introducing Article 51A(k).

Key Concept

Constitutional Amendments modifying Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and Fundamental Duties
PreviousPage 2 / 16Next